Washoe the talking chimp, RIPWas she the first animal to learn a human language?
Why do I say that? Washoe was regarded by many as the first non-human to communicate in a human language, American Sign Language. But for all the exposure to language that Washoe received, there is no convincing evidence that it (or any other ape) employed signs to express thoughts or acquire new thoughts. As the authors of Primate Cognition, Michael Tomasello and Josep Call, note: "It is well known that the productions of these apes are almost invariably requests (one estimate is 95 per cent) and that the intention behind those productions that are not requests is difficult to discern." The simplest explanation for this is that apes have no thoughts to express. They produce signs chiefly to obtain things they want in a manner similar to pigeons pressing the correctly coloured button to get a food reward. Notoriously absent from the transcripts of ape "utterances" is anything that constitutes a conversation geared to gaining an understanding of some aspect of the world simply for the sake of understanding. It is not Washoe’s failure to produce a deathbed discourse like that of Socrates while "surrounded by staff members and other primates who had been close to her" or even Washoe’s failure to ask some simple question about its imminent death that makes us question its capacity for abstract thought. It is that Washoe and other linguistically trained apes never ask the sort of "why" questions children spontaneously ask in order to increase their understanding of the world. The apes’ world is limited to things that can be sensed and imagined; the human world is a world of ideas as well. Washoe was one of the first of a series of apes that scientists tried to teach language to. Common sense indicated that this would be a hopeless endeavour. As linguist Noam Chomsky puts it: "It would be something of a biological miracle if we were to discover that some other species had a similar capacity [for language] but had never thought to put it to use, despite the remarkable advantages it would confer, until instructed by humans to do so -- rather as if we were to discover in some remote area a species of bird that had the capacity of flight but had never thought to fly." The language studies with apes have nonetheless contributed to our knowledge by forcing us to clarify our understanding of what mind, thought, and language are. They uncovered behaviours that appear surprising at first sight. For example, the chimp Loulis learned two dozen signs not from humans, but from the chimps Washoe and Ally. And the bonobo Kanzi learned how to use a keyboard simply by watching its mother use it. The chimp Nim sometimes signed to himself while flipping through magazines. However these behaviours are neither as mysterious nor human-like as they may first seem. Just an ape can learn to associate a sign with a reward because it itself is given the reward it can do so because it observes that another chimp who has made that sign has gotten a reward. And once chimps get into the habit of doing something, habit being second nature renders the habitual activity agreeable to them. Even dogs, once they have learned to associate "sit" with being rewarded when they sit, will generally obey the command even when it is no longer rewarded. At the time of the first ape studies the popular press broadcast one-sided claims about the apes’ linguistic ability. Of late though, it is more even-handed in reporting that many mainstream scientists reject the claim that the apes are true language users in light of evidence such as the apes’ lack of conversational ability. So, while I acknowledge that Washoe was an amazing chimp, I do not think that a eulogy is in order. A eulogy supposes that the individual has character, and to have character supposes that one can act according to principle. Washoe’s inability to grasp abstract principles, moral or other, makes it impossible to regard it as a moral agent. We can be grateful for the things we learned from observing Washoe; we cannot reasonably extend to this chimp the sort of tribute that belongs only to persons. Marie I. George is Professor of Philosophy at St. John’s University, New York. An Aristotelian-Thomist, she holds a PhD from Laval University, and a MA in biology from Queens College, NY. She has received a number of awards from the Templeton Foundation for her work in science and religion. |
related articlesmorebythisauthorfree updates |
Home | SiteMap | 
RSS | Atom | 
del.icio.us | Privacy Policy |
MercatorNet - New Media Foundation Ltd © 2004 - 2008 All rights reserved
Comment (7)
Email
Print
Technorati
digg
As I read the New York Times headline "
Comments (7)
Mike Curtis said...Actually, I think “Tickle me!” is infinitely better than a dreary, “Boo hoo hoo! Why am I dying?”
Come to think of it, “Banana please!” is quite good too!!
United Kingdom | Saturday, 10 November 2007 at 7:52 pm
Laura said...I think this is a great article: clear, concise and very Thomistic. The latter is intended as the highest compliment which I can offer to a philosopher. Thanks, Dr. George.
As far as what words I would like to say when I am about to die there are 2 stages: if there is anybody near me I would like to tell them a joke (my maternal grandfather did that) and then i should go to the second and last step and tell God: “I am ready”.
So Mike, there alternatives to your dreary, “Boo hoo hoo! Why am I dying?” Cheerioo!
United States | Monday, 12 November 2007 at 2:19 am
Portia Liangco said...I highly appreciate the keen observation of this writer. He has disproved that humans have descended from apes. That truth makes me happy. I can never accept the theory of evolution.
I believe I came and was created by our God.
That makes me feel more dignified and yes human.
-- | Monday, 12 November 2007 at 11:10 am
Przemek said...Thank you for this article.
It would be interesting to read more on the animals - such as Loulis, Kanzi and Nim - and its supprising abilities, backed up with the comments about the differences of this behaviour from the human behaviour.
Poland | Monday, 12 November 2007 at 8:34 pm
minch said...John Paul II wrote a great letter, Faith and Reason (Fides et Ratio). He explains how human reasoning needs God’s revelations and how these truths can be explained in turn in a human way. The divine is most respectful of human nature and human nature to be natural needs the supernatural. Didn’t God become human without ceasing to be God, and so truly human, he died? Well, we know why then he could resurrect. We can study Christ the way we study any historical figure but we could also figure out that he is the Son of God. Some may take more time to accept this not because of the faulty reasoning but also because of the rather faulty willingness to follow all the consequences of truth, living it, practicing it. What is the link between this and Washoe? Let everyone assess himself.
Philippines | Tuesday, 13 November 2007 at 12:23 pm
gazaah said...Boo! Boo! You, my dear author, have not been hanging around the creatures it would seem. I’ve read the yay and nay literature, surrounding such cases from Alex the grey parrot to Nim Chimpsky to the syntax-aware dolphins from Maui. But I’ve also been an wild animal trainer for a number of years, and the day to day reality is yeah they’re not human, no duh, but they are still complex and a number of species aware. I had a grey parrot who would ask “why” until satisfied. “Want upup want shoulder upupup” “NO you can’t come up” “...why.” “See the orange color cord, danger, very hot.” And the bird would stare at the cord and shrink back into her feathers, the begging for “up” having ceased. A point of the finger and a color identifier associated the cord to the all terrible dangers of “hot” (a simple explanation of electrical dangers) which was the only warning the bird would get if her oatmeal and veggie mash was still very warm--they’re not good judges of temperature until it’s in their beaks so she learned “hot” meant “stay the heck away, or at least eat slowly” quickly. If the why was not sufficient the begging continued. So go hang out with some wild animals that have acquired elements of human language, it’s a cool kick and it makes you feel kinda happy to realize not all the critters out there doing their thing are dumb ones. If the language thing is a barrier for you, then look at the folk physics understanding in crows, that’s pretty dang cool too!
United States | Tuesday, 13 November 2007 at 6:23 pm
Marie George said...I am not surprised that a parrot can associate a word like “hot” with pain, and modify its behavior in the ways you mention when told that something is hot. To make such an association does not require abstract thought, but can take place simply at the level of memory. Hearing “hot” brings to mind a previous painful experience associated with the vocal sound “hot,” similar to the sound of a bell causing Pavlov’s dogs to salivate. There is no abstract thought going on in the latter case, and similarly there is no reason to posit abstract thought on the part of the parrot. It is similar to what humans do when they have no understanding of what certain biological terms mean, but through brute memory learn to make the associations necessary to pass an exam. (It is amazing how well students can do using brute memory, and how the slightest variation in the way the question is asked reveals that these students haven’t the slightest idea of what is being talked about.)
Saying “hot” in reference to the orange cord does not constitute a theoretical explanation of the nature of electricity - again my thesis is that animals lack abstract thought. The bird would have shrunk from a cool object unfamiliar to it if you had told it that this object was hot, for as you note this word indicates danger for the bird. As for “why,” it appears to be a word the bird uses when it is trying to get something, not to understand something. You yourself say that “If the why was not sufficient the begging continued.” Sufficent to quench its desire to understand or sufficient to dissuade it from further interest in the item begged for? The case of the electrical cord indicates the latter.
United States | Friday, 16 November 2007 at 4:35 am
Page 1 of 1 :
New comment